The Anglo-Saxon Fyrd
c.400-878 AD

Vikings assailing a Burh. It is thought that this image from
a 12th century manuscript was illuminated at Bury St. Edmunds, and shows
it is thought Thetford under attack.

The Old English word fyrd is used by many modern writers to describe
the Anglo-Saxon army, and indeed this is one of its meanings, although the word
here is equally valid. In its oldest form the word fyrd had meant
"a journey or expedition". However, the exact meaning of the word,
like the nature of the armies it is used to describe, changed a great deal between
the times the first Germanic settlers left their homelands and the time of the
battle of Hastings. The Anglo-Saxon period was a violent one. Warfare dominated
its history and shaped the nature of its governance. Indeed, war was the natural
state in the Germanic homelands and the patchwork of tribal kingdoms that composed
pre-Viking England. Chieftains engaged in a seemingly endless struggle against
foreign enemies and rival kinsmen for authority, power and tribute. Even after
Christianity had supplied them with an ideology of kingship that did not depend
on success in battle these petty wars continued until they were ended by the
Viking invasions. From 793AD until the last years of William the Conqueror"s
rule, England was under constant threat, and often attack, from the Northmen.

In order to understand the nature of the armies that fought in these battles,
many historians in the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century looked
to classical authors, particularly the 1st century Roman Author Tacitus. Tacitus,
in his book Germania, gives much detail of how the German tribes organised their
military forces, and many historians used the fact that the tribes Tacitus was
writing about were the forebears of the early Germanic
invaders to explain the nature of the Anglo-Saxon fyrd. But are the tribal
customs of barbarian people really a good basis for the nature of a nation removed
by almost 1000 years? More recent research has shown that the nature of the
fyrd changed a great deal in the 969 years between the time of Tacitus"
writing and the battle of Hastings.

For many years there was much debate amongst scholars as to whether the fyrd
consisted of nobleman warriors who fought for the king in return for land and
privileges (peasants farmed and aristocrats fought), or whether the fyrd consisted
of a general levy of all able bodied men in a ceorl (peasant) based economy.
In 1962 C.W. Hollister proposed an ingenious solution: there had been not one
but two types of fyrd. There had been a "select fyrd", a force
of professional, noble land-owning warriors, and a second levy, the "great
fyrd" - the nation in arms. This view, because of its elegant simplicity,
soon achieved the status of orthodoxy amongst most historians, and is the view
put forward in many of the more general books on the period published today.
However, continued research has shown this view to be incorrect. Hollister coined
the terms "great fyrd" and "select fyrd" because there was
no equivalent terminology in contemporary Old English or Latin. Current research
shows that the Anglo-Saxon fyrd was a constantly developing organisation,
and its nature changes as you go through the Anglo-Saxon period.

From what little we know of the customs and nature of the early German settlers
in this country, we can be fairly sure that much of what Tacitus wrote about
the first century Germans still applied to their fourth, fifth and early sixth
century descendants. The early tribes were military in nature, consisting mainly
of free warrior families and tenant farmers, free and unfree, ruled by a tribal
chief or king. These tribes were often grouped together in nations, sometimes
under the rule of a "high-king".

Tacitus tells us:

"They choose their kings for their noble birth, their leaders for their
valour. The power even of the kings is not absolute or arbitrary. As for the
leaders, it is their example rather than their authority that wins them special
admiration - for their energy, their distinction, or their presence in the
van of fight.....
"No business, public or private, is transacted except in arms. But it
is the rule that no-one shall take up arms until the tribe has attested that
he is likely to make good. When the time comes, one of the chiefs or the father
or a kinsman equips the young warrior with shield and spear in the public
council. This with the Germans is the equivalent of our toga - the first public
distinction of youth. They cease to rank merely as members of the household
and are now members of the tribe. Conspicuous ancestry or great services rendered
by their fathers can win the rank of chief for boys still in their teens.
They are attached to the other chiefs, who are more mature and approved, and
no one blushes to be seen thus in the ranks of the companions. This order
of companions has even its different grades, as determined by the leader,
and there is intense rivalry among the companions for the first place by the
chief, amongst the chiefs for the most numerous and enthusiastic companions.
Dignity and power alike consist in being continually attended by a corps of
chosen youths. This gives you consideration in peace time and security in
war. Nor is it only in a man's own nation that he can win fame by the superior
number and quality of his companions, but in neighbouring states as well.
Chiefs are courted by embassies and complimented by gifts, and they often
virtually decide wars by the mere weight of their reputation.
"On the field of battle it is a disgrace to the chief to be surpassed
in valour by his companions, to the companions not to come up to the valour
of their chief. As for leaving a battle alive after your chief has fallen,
that means lifelong infamy and shame. To defend and protect him, to put down
one's own acts of heroism to his credit - that is what they really mean by
"allegiance"'. The chiefs fight for victory, the companions for
their chief. Many noble youths, if the land of their birth is stagnating in
a protracted peace, deliberately seek out other tribes, where some war is
afoot. The Germans have no taste for peace; renown is easier won among perils,
and you cannot maintain a large body of companions except by violence and
war. The companions are prodigal in their demands on the generosity of their
chiefs. It is always "give me that war-horse" or "give me that
bloody and vicious spear". As for meals with their plentiful, if homely,
fare, they count simply as pay. Such open-handedness must have war and plunder
to feed it."

We know from other parts of Tacitus" writings that the tribes farmers
supported chief and his warriors in return for protection from the depravations
of enemy tribes. At need, the chief was able to call out all able bodied freemen
in defence of the tribes lands, although usually he relied only on his warrior
"companions". These companions were fed and housed by the chief, and
would receive payment in war-gear and food (the only use of precious metals
by the Germans in Tacitus"s time was for trading with the Roman Empire).

Manuscript Cotton.Claudius.B.IV from the British Library.
This was drawn around 1000AD, and is a translation of the Old Testament
that was partly translated by Ęlfric.
Another illustration from the same work is in the chapter on Anglo-Saxon
law. It displays some rather odd pieces of equipment such as the 'Phrygian
Hats' as helmets and only the King wears mail, which is unrealistic

How were these companions equipped? Again Tacitus can help us here:

"Only a very few use swords or lances. The spears that they carry -
frameae is the native word - have short and narrow heads, but are so sharp
and easy to handle, that the same weapon serves at need for close or distant
fighting. The horseman asks no more than his shield and spear, but the infantry
have also javelins to shower, several per man, and they can hurl them to a
great distance; for they are either naked or only lightly clad in their cloaks.
There is nothing ostentatious in their turn out. Only the shields are picked
out with carefully selected colours. Few have body armour; only here and there
will you see a helmet of metal or hide. Their horses are not distinguished
either for beauty or for speed, nor are they trained in Roman fashion to execute
various turns. They ride them straight ahead or with a single swing to the
right, keeping the wheeling line so perfect that no one drops behind the rest.
On general survey, their strength is seen to lie rather in their infantry,
and that is why they combine the two arms in battle. The men who they select
from the whole force and station in the van are fleet of foot and fit admirably
into cavalry action. The number of these chosen men is exactly fixed. A hundred
are drawn from each district, and 'the hundred' is the name they bear at home."

This seems to be a misunderstanding by Tacitus because, although the hundred
was a land division, it is unlikely, given the size of armies at the time, that
each would send 100 warriors. However, from this description it would seem that
the warriors were primarily infantry with a small amount of cavalry support.
They would generally be armed only with spear(s) and shield, although a few
of the greatest/most well off might possess a sword, helm or, rarely, body armour.
Archaeology bears this out, and probably most of the swords, helms and mailshirts
originated within the Roman Empire, reaching the Germans either by trade or
as spoils of war. The relative commonness and scarcity of the various types
of arms and armour is well borne out by finds from sacrificial bogs where votive
offerings of the arms and armour of defeated enemies were often made. In these
finds shields and spears (and surprisingly often bows and arrows) are by far
the most common, with swords, helms and armour all being much rarer. Up until
the fourth century most of these swords, helms and mailshirts are of Roman type,
although from the fifth century onwards distinctly German type swords become
more common.

By the time of the invasion of Britain in the fifth century the Germans had
become so heavily dependant on their infantry that one British writer tells
us that "they know not the use of cavalry." The armies coming to this
country were usually far smaller than their Roman predecessors. Most of the
accounts tell of the armies arriving in only two or three ships, and as ships
of this time generally carried no more than 50-60 men, most of these armies
probably only numbered 100-200 men. Despite the small size of these armies,
the Germans were able to carve themselves out many small kingdoms, killing,
driving off or enslaving the native population as they went, but it should be
remembered that they did not always have things their own way. This was the
time of Arthur who, through his use of Roman cavalry tactics against the Germanic
infantry, was able to defeat the invaders so heavily, they were unable to advance
any further for almost fifty years. However, by the end of the sixth century
the Germanic, or as they were then starting to call themselves, Anglo-Saxon
invaders had taken over much of lowland Britain and carved out many small Kingdoms
of varying strengths and hierarchies much as they had had in Germany.

War was endemic to the kingdoms of sixth, seventh and eighth century Britain.
An Anglo-Saxon ruler of this period was above all else a warlord, a dryhten,
as the Old-English sources put it. His primary duty was to protect his people
against the depredations of their neighbours and to lead them on expeditions
( fyrds) of plunder and conquest. As we hear in Beowulf (who lived at
this time) about Scyld (literally 'shield'), the mythical founder of the Danish
royal line:

"Scyld Sceafing often deprived his enemies, many tribes of men, of their
mead-benches. He terrified his foes; yet he, as a boy, had been found as a
waif; fate made amends for that. He prospered under heaven, won praise and
honour, until the men of every neighbouring tribe, across the whale's way,
were obliged to obey him and pay him tribute. He was a good king!"

Scyld was a good king because he was lord of a mighty war-band that profited
from his leadership. As long as he lived, his people were safe and he enjoyed
tribute from the surrounding tribes. This portrait is no mere convention of
a heroic genre. Even the early Anglo-Saxon monks, when writing about the Anglo-Saxon
kings of this time, show that this was not an heroic ideal, but the way a king
ruled.

It is noteworthy that the early sources use the language of personal lordship
to express the obligations owed a king. When Wiglaf followed Beowulf into combat
against the dragon, he did not speak of his duty to "king and country,"
but of the responsibility of a retainer to serve and protect his lord. In fact,
amongst the early Anglo-Saxons a king was simply the lord of the nobles. Even
the term cyning [king] literally only means "of the kin" and
denoted a member of the royal line, while the office of king was expressed by
the titles hlaford [loaf- or land-lord] and dryhten [war-lord].
The æþeling who was chosen for the office of king was merely the member
of the royal line who could command the largest war-band. This fact helps to
explain the many "civil wars" which took place in the early Anglo-Saxon
kingdoms, and why a king who gained his position by force could so quickly be
accepted by his subjects.

A scene depicting Psalm 27 in the Harley Psalter, showing an army and their camp

A seventh or eighth century king most often came to his throne through violence
or through the threat of violence, and kept his crown by warding off domestic
and foreign rivals. Peace was simply the aftermath of one war and the prelude
to another. In violent times such as these, it was necessary that a king secure
(in the words of the Beowulf poet) "beloved companions to stand by him,
people to serve him when war comes." But what obliged men in seventh
century England to attend a king"s army, and what sort of men were they?
As the kingdoms developed in England the ceorl
(peasant) had come to receive a more important position than in the Germanic
homelands, but did he replace the nobleman in forming the bulk of the king"s
army (a view held by many nineteenth and early twentieth century historians).
Careful study of contemporary sources has shown that although the ceorl, as
a freeman, had the right to bear arms, he would rarely have joined the king"s
fyrd. The word fyrd had, by this time, acquired a distinctly martial
connotation, and had come to mean "armed expedition or force."

It is clear that the king"s companions or, to use the Old English term,
Gesiþas were still drawn from aristocratic warrior families, but now
the gift-giving seen in earlier times had undergone something of a change. Now,
in addition to war-gear, gifts of valuable items (a lord is often referred to
as a "giver of rings" in literature) were given too, or most sought
after of all, land. In Anglo-Saxon England a gift was not given freely, and
a gift was expected in return in the form of service. When a warrior took up
service with a lord he was required to "love all that his lord loved, and
to hate all that he hated." Neither gift was "complete" - gift
and counter-gift sustained one another. For example, although it was customary
for a warrior to receive an estate for life (either his own or his lord"s),
it was not a certainty. If one failed in his duty to the king the royal grant
could be forfeited. Thus the king"s gift was as open-ended as his retainers
counter-gift of service; the former was continually renewed and confirmed by
the latter.

To receive land from one"s lord was a sign of special favour. A landed
estate was a symbolic as well as an economic gift. It differed from other gifts
in that its possession signified a new, higher status for the warrior within
the king"s retinue. Consequently, by the seventh century we see the emergence
of different classes of warrior noble - the geoguþ (youth) and duguþ
(proven warrior). The former were young, unmarried warriors, often the sons
of duguþ, who, having as yet no land of their own, resided with their
lord, attending and accompanying him as he progressed through his estates, much
as the "companions" of Tacitus" day had done. The well known
settlement of West Stow near Bury St. Edmunds in Suffolk may well have represented
an estate of the type which would have been granted to a duguþ. When
a gesiþ of this sort had proved himself to his lord"s satisfaction,
he received from him a suitable endowment of land, perhaps even the land his
father had held from the lord. This made him into a duguþþ. He ceased
to dwell in his lord"s household, although he still attended his councils;
rather, he lived upon the donated estate, married, raised a family, and maintained
a household of his own. In order to improve his standing the duguþ would
often raise military retainers of his own, probably from amongst the more prosperous
ceorls on his estates (this is how the name geneat [companion] originated
to describe men from the top portion of the cierlisc class) and other
geoguþ who had not yet sworn themselves to some other lord. These
estates are often referred to a scir (shire) in the early records. This
military following was known as the lord"s hearþweru or hirþ
[household or "hearth" troops].

When a king assembled his army, the duguþ were expected to answer his
summons at the head of their retinues, much as they would attend his court in
time of peace. The fyrd would thus have been the king"s household
warriors (gesiþ) augmented by the followings of his landed retainers
(duguþ). If a warrior did not answer the king"s summons, he could
be penalised, as King Ine"s laws show:

51. If a gesiþcund mon [nobleman] who holds land neglects military
service, he shall pay 120 shillings and forfeit his land; [a nobleman] who
holds no land shall pay 60 shillings; a cierlisc [peasant] shall pay
30 shillings as penalty for neglecting the fyrd.

This clause does not prove that the early Anglo-Saxon fyrd was made up of peasant
warriors, as some historians argue. Rather, it shows that some peasants fought
alongside the nobility when the king summoned his army. These ceorls were the
peasants in the service of the king, or in the service of one of his duguþ.
When an Anglo-Saxon king of the sixth to eighth century chose to war, his retainers
would follow him into battle, not out of duty to defend the "nation"
or the "folk," but because he was their lord. Similarly, their own
men, also obliged by the bond of lordship, fought under them.

The size of these armies was quite small; King Ine defined the size of an army
in his law code:

13. §1. We use the term "thieves" if the number of men does not
exceed seven, "band of marauders" [or "war-band"]
for a number between seven and thirty-five. Anything beyond this is an "army"
[here]

Although the exact size of armies of this time remain unknown, even the most
powerful kings could probably not call upon warriors numbering more than the
low hundreds. Certainly in the late eighth century the æþeling (prince)
Cyneherd considered his army of eighty-four men sufficiently large to attempt
to seize the throne of Wessex.

When Centwine became king of the West Saxons in 676AD, he drove his rival kinsman,
Cędwalla, into exile. The exiled nobleman sought refuge in the "desert
places of Chiltern and the Weald" and gathered about himself a war-band.
In time his following grew so large that he was able to plunder the lands of
the South Saxons, and kill their king in the process. After nine years of brigandage,
he turned back to Wessex and began to "contend for the kingdom." The
king"s resources were no match for Cędwalla"s, and when they met in
battle the West Saxon fyrd was decisively defeated. It seems most likely
that Cędwalla"s victory was the triumph of one war-band over another, rather
than the conquest of a "nation."

Time and again we are told in the sources that a new king had to defend his
kingdom with tiny armies. Later in their reigns, these same kings having survived
these attacks made "while their kingdoms were still weak," are found
leading great armies. After all, victory meant tribute and land, and these in
turn meant that a king could attract more warriors into his service.

How were these warriors equipped? Unfortunately, our only written sources for
this period are the heroic tales such as Beowulf and the Finnesburh Fragment,
etc., but these are remarkably consistent in their descriptions. From the Finnesburh
Fragment we hear:

"…Birds of battle screech, the grey wolf howls, spears rattle, shield
answers shaft. …Then many a thegn, laden in gold, buckled on his sword-belt.
…The hollow shield called for bold men"s hands, helmets burst;
…Then Guþere withdrew, a wounded man; he said that his armour was almost useless,
his byrnie [mail-shirt] broken, his helmet burst open."

In Beowulf we hear many references to arms and armour such as:

"Then Hrothgar"s thane leaped onto his horse and, brandishing a
spear, galloped down to the shore; there, he asked
at once: "Warriors! Who are you, in your coats of mail,
who have steered your tall ship over the sea-lanes to these shores? .... Never
have warriors, carrying their shields, come to this
country in a more open manner. Nor were you assured of my leader"s approval,
my kinsmen"s consent. I have never set eyes on a more noble man, a warrior
in armour, than one among your band; he"s no mere retainer, so ennobled
by his weapons." ... The boar crest, brightly gleaming, stood over their
helmets: superbly tempered, plated with glowing gold,
it guarded the lives of those grim warriors. ... Their byrnies were gleaming,
the strong links of shining chain-mail chinked together. When the sea-stained
travellers had reached the hall itself in their fearsome armour, they placed
their broad shields (worked so skilfully) against Heorot"s wall. Then
they sat on a bench; the brave men"s armour sang. The seafarer"s
gear stood all together, a grey tipped forest of ash spears; that armed troop
was well equipped with weapons. .... in common we all share sword,
helmet, byrnie, the trappings of war."

These descriptions are borne out by archaeology. Male burials in the pagan
period were often accompanied by war gear. On average around 47% of male burials
from the pagan period contain weapons of some sort. This figure has often been
used to argue for the idea of a "nation in arms", but has conveniently
overlooked the fact that although spears were found in just over 86% of the
accompanied burials, shields were found in only 44%. As we have seen earlier,
and as the literary evidence bears out, spear and shield made up the basic war-gear
of an Anglo-Saxon warrior. It should be borne in mind that, although the spear
was used in battle, it was also a tool of the hunt. Many of the interred spears
probably represent hunting tools rather than weapons. As we start to look at
other types of weapon, we find they are far less common than the spear and shield.
Swords are found in only about 12% of accompanied burials, axes in about 2%
and seaxes (traditionally, the knife from which the Saxons
derive their name.) only about 4%. This makes for an interesting comparison
with the Saxons" continental homelands where some 50 - 70% contained seaxes.
Armour and helmets, whilst not unknown are decidedly rare and are usually only
found in the richest of burials. Certainly in archaeology they seem to be far
rarer than in literature, although the few examples we have agree remarkably
well with the literary descriptions. This apparent rarity of armour and helmets
may have more to do with burial customs than the scarcity of these items at
the time. It appears that the pagan Anglo-Saxons believed in some warrior heaven,
similar in nature to the Viking Valhalla. The grave goods were what they would
need in this afterlife, and in order to fight the warrior needed weapons, but
if death was only a "temporary setback", why give them armour that
could be far better used by their mortal counterparts?

It would seem likely from these sources that the kings and more important noblemen
would possess a coat-of-mail and a crested helmet, a sword, shield and spear(s).
Noblemen of middling rank may have possessed a helm, perhaps a sword, and a
shield and spear(s). The lowest ranking warriors would have been equipped with
just a shield and spear(s), and perhaps a secondary weapon such as an axe or
seax.

The advent of Christianity in the seventh century was to bring about a change
in the fyrd which would totally change its nature by the middle of the ninth
century. As Christianity spread the monasteries needed land on which to build,
and as we have already seen land tended to be given only for the lifetime of
the king. However, the monasteries needed a more secure arrangement than just
the hope that the king"s successor would maintain the donation. This was
achieved through the introduction of a Roman system known as ius perpetuum,
or as the Anglo-Saxons called it bocland [bookland]. Under this system
the king gave the land to the Church in eternity, and the grant was recorded
in writing [the book] and witnessed by important noblemen and churchmen so that
the land could not be taken back in future. Although book-land was foreign in
origin, it flourished in England because the notion a man gave so that he might
receive was anything but foreign to the pagan English. Book-land must have struck
early Christian kings as a reasonable demand on the part of the Church. A Christian
king gave a free gift to God in hope of receiving from Him an eternal gift -
salvation. Whilst nothing that he could give to the Lord would be sufficient,
for no man could be God"s equal, just as no retainer could hope to be the
equal of his lord, a king could at least respond with an eternal terrestrial
gift, a perpetual grant of land and the rights over it. This exchange of gifts
confirmed the relationship of lordship that existed between a king and his Lord
God in the same way as the relationship between a gesiþ and his lord.

How did book-land impinge upon the early fyrd arrangement? On the simplest
level, what was given to the Church could not be used to endow warriors. As
time went by more and more land was booked to the church, and many of the kings
noblemen became disgruntled. Some of the noblemen offered to build abbeys and
become the abbot on their land in return for the book-right, and this was often
granted even if the noblemen did not keep his end of the bargain. The holders
of these early books, both genuine and spurious, enjoyed their tenures free
from all service, including military service. And by giving the land in book-right,
the king had removed it permanently from his control.

The kings faced a dilemma. This dilemma was first solved by the Mercian kings
of the mid-eighth century, when King Æþelbald decreed that all the churches
and monasteries in his realm were to be free from "all public renders,
works and charges, reserving only two things: the construction of bridges and
the defence of fortifications against enemies."

By the latter part of the eighth century book-right was being granted to secular
as well as ecclesiastical men. In order to maintain his fyrd, King Offa of Mercia
further refined Æþthelbald"s decree by giving land free of all service "except
for matters pertaining to expeditions [fyrd], and the construction of
bridges and fortifications, which is necessary for the whole people and from
which none ought to be excused." By the mid ninth century these "common
burdens" (as they were often referred to) were being demanded in all the
kingdoms.

In short the idea of military service as a condition of land tenure was a consequence
of book-right. Under the traditional land-holding arrangement a stipulation
of this sort would have been unnecessary - a holder of loanland from the king
was by definition a king"s man, and his acceptance of an estate obliged
him to respond with fidelity and service to his royal lord. Book-land tenure,
a hereditary possession, was quite a different matter, for such a grant permanently
removed the land from the king"s control without assuring that future generations
who owned the property would recognise the king or his successors as their lord.
By imposing the "common burdens", the king guaranteed military service
from book-land and tied the holders of the book securely to the ruler of the
tribe. By this time the terms geoguþ and duguþ were being replaced
by dreng (young warrior) and thegn (one who serves). The dreng
still attended the king directly, whilst the thegn was usually the holder
of book-land. By now, the term scir usually denoted more than just a
single estate, and the thegn who held the scir was usually referred
to as an ealdorman. Many of the lesser thegns within the scir
would have held their land from the ealdorman in addition to those who
held land directly from the king.